And of course, if you still believe just adding bandwidth
will solve the problems
Joe St. Sauver probably said it best when he pointed out in slide 5 here
http://www.uoregon.edu/~joe/i2-cap-plan/internet2-capacity-planning.ppt
the N-body problem can be a complex problem to try to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
If P2P software relied on an ISP middlebox to mediate the transfers,
then each middlebox could optimize the local situation by using a whole
smorgasbord of tools.
Are there any examples of middleware being adopted by the market? To me, it
looks like the clear
Have to say, using screenOS 5.4 on our juniper kit and relatively happy.
Elsewhere, if you just want a packet filter, v6 ACLs are fine, depending
of course whether they are done in hardware or software and if this is
appropriate for your application (i.e , ACL in software path is
perfectly
Hi,
The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of
two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in October 2007: 144/8 and 115/8. You can
find the IANA IPv4 registry at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
Please update your filters as appropriate.
Regards,
Leo
That and the fact that an ISP would be aiding and abetting
illegal activities, in the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA. That's not
to say that technically it would not be better, but that it will
never happen due to political and legal issues, IMO.
Fred Reimer, CISSP
Senior Network Engineer
Coleman
On 29 Oct 2007, at 16:44, Leo Vegoda wrote:
The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of
two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in October 2007: 144/8 and 115/8. You can
find the IANA IPv4 registry at:
I made a typo in the body of this mail. APNIC was allocated 114/8 and
not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course, if you still believe just adding bandwidth
will solve the problems
Joe St. Sauver probably said it best when he pointed out in slide 5 here
http://www.uoregon.edu/~joe/i2-cap-plan/internet2-capacity-planning.ppt
the N-body problem can be a
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Fred Reimer wrote:
That and the fact that an ISP would be aiding and abetting
illegal activities, in the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA. That's not
to say that technically it would not be better, but that it will
never happen due to political and legal issues, IMO.
As always
Jared,
I yanked the mp3 out of the youtube flv: http://blyon.com/
routers_died.mp3
-Barrett
On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
Cool. Time for a remix as
When we put the application intelligence in the network. We
have to upgrade the network to support new applications. I
believe that's a mistake from the application innovation angle.
Putting middleboxes into an ISP is not the same thing as
putting intelligence into the network. Think Akamai
The RIAA is specifically going after P2P networks. As far as I
know, they are not going after Squid users/hosts. Although they
may have at one point, it has never made the popular media as
their effort against the P2P networks has. I'm not talking about
caching at all anyway. I'm talking about
On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with
specific information other than to suggest a review
of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine
where your mailing practices may be improved upon.
In other words,
Barrett Lyon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
I yanked the mp3 out of the youtube flv: http://blyon.com/routers_died.mp3
-Barrett
Better, now we just need a higher quality MP3 from the source :/
--
Michael
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:31 -0400, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
No, they aren't in the business to teach someone
who's been in the industry all his life, and run
Managed Server Companies for over 11 years...
Define run... you have piqued my curiosity on this issue.
Please only reply to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:33:57 EDT, Jim Popovitch said:
Please only reply to the list, not to From:/Reply-To: AND the list
You could at least have set a Reply-To: so that those people who mindlessly hit
'reply' would have your desired reply destination already filled in.
Requesting that people
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:53 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:33:57 EDT, Jim Popovitch said:
Please only reply to the list, not to From:/Reply-To: AND the list
You could at least have set a Reply-To: so that those people who mindlessly
hit
'reply' would have your
There's a large installed based of asymmetric speed internet access links.
Considering that even BPON and GPON solutions are designed for asymmetric
use, too, it's going to take a fiber-based Active Ethernet solution to
transform access links to change the residential experience to something
Is there a generally accepted method of automatically altering exit
policies within an AS?
I'd like to dynamically change from best-exit to a hot potato exit
policy when an internal DS3 fails. We fail over to a much lower
bandwidth link and would like to avoid sending anything but internal
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:50:32 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comcast's network is QOS DSCP enabled, as are many other large provider
networks. Enterprise customers use QOS DSCP all the time. However, the
net neutrality battles last year made it politically impossible for
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:53:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
You can nail down your announcements to external peers by tying their
network blocks to a route-of-last resort on one of your loopbacks. This
will prevent flapping externally.
Point taken, but it's actually difficult to nail down
Perhaps a drawing of your architecture might make your travails more clear?
Benjamin Howell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:53:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
You can nail down your announcements to external peers by tying their
network blocks to a route-of-last resort on one of your
On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fix your forwarding a lot better. Not sure what this
means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They
accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the
processing MX's or ARE one one of the
On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with
specific information other than to suggest a review
of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine
where
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Benjamin Howell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:53:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
You can nail down your announcements to external peers by tying their
network blocks to a route-of-last resort on one of your loopbacks. This
will prevent flapping externally.
Point
24 matches
Mail list logo
